José Otero Dr. Michael T. Williamson ENGL 864 23 June 2014 Rossetti Political Poetry Response The first of Christina Rossetti’s poems that I see as political is the poem “Cousin Kate.” The conflict in the poem centers around two women who have been seduced by a man; however, Kate is the one who eventually marries the man while the speaker is left alone, but with a child. For me, the political aspect of the poem is evident from the start; the male love interest is a “great lord” and the speaker a “cottage maiden.” There is an obvious socioeconomic class difference, which the lord uses to his advantage. The speaker affirms that the lord truly loved her, but his actions after their affair suggest otherwise. In any case, I see this as political because it involves the use of class power to take advantage of others. Even if the lord was unaware that he was using this power to his advantage, it still occurred. At the end of the poem, the speaker makes another political gesture by suggesting that her illegitimate child will receive the lord’s inheritance. This calls into question the entire practice of inheritance. Should these inheritances be bound by blood? By marriage? By both? Should the oldest child always be the heir? With this ending, Rossetti brings to light the problems inherent in this system. Is there really any type of natural right that a person has by simply being born? “Sister Maude” addresses a similar issue where a woman has become pregnant outside of marriage. But instead of the pregnant woman being shamed, it is the woman’s sister Maude who is shamed. For the speaker, the real sin is that Maude has betrayed her trust by telling everyone about the pregnancy and the affair. Here, Rossetti calls into question the shaming of women who become pregnant outside of marriage. This is certainly political because women can be denied fundamental rights because they are pregnant without a husband. Even in our time, we can remember when women would not be able to finish high school because they became pregnant. And we still have politicians who would like to shame women for using birth control, not to mention the catholic church who is still influential in many people’s lives. This type of treatment of women has real consequences. Impoverished peoples are denied the right to control the rates at which they reproduce. “No, Thank You, John” is also political in that it affirms a woman’s right to decide who and if she marries. The speaker’s direct statements to John reveal the social structure that assumes that every woman must marry any suitable man who asks. Particularly interesting is when John must have told the speaker that she was not “true.” It reveals a social convention that women must be connected to men through marriage to be considered virtuous. In this case, the mere fact that John proclaimed his love for the speaker makes her bound to him in some way—she is no longer “true” because she doesn’t accept it. This is political because these types of social conventions bleed into other areas of life. An older friend of mine was explicitly asked at a job interview at a university if her husband approved of her working. And even politicians today are typically married. Have we ever had a president that was single? And although I certainly support marriage equality, we can see that this right also brings with it the weight of social convention. Gay couples will eventually be pushed to marry to be considered to be in legitimate relationships. In any case, I probably see most writing as inherently political because it reflects the world in which we live. And the social world is the political. Our social conventions shape policy. The denial of marriage rights to gay couples is a perfect example. There is no logical reason to deny these rights. The denial of these rights for so long was based on social conventions. So for me, it’s all political.
Dr. Michael T. Williamson
ENGL 864
23 June 2014
Rossetti Political Poetry Response
The first of Christina Rossetti’s poems that I see as political is the poem “Cousin Kate.” The conflict in the poem centers around two women who have been seduced by a man; however, Kate is the one who eventually marries the man while the speaker is left alone, but with a child. For me, the political aspect of the poem is evident from the start; the male love interest is a “great lord” and the speaker a “cottage maiden.” There is an obvious socioeconomic class difference, which the lord uses to his advantage. The speaker affirms that the lord truly loved her, but his actions after their affair suggest otherwise. In any case, I see this as political because it involves the use of class power to take advantage of others. Even if the lord was unaware that he was using this power to his advantage, it still occurred. At the end of the poem, the speaker makes another political gesture by suggesting that her illegitimate child will receive the lord’s inheritance. This calls into question the entire practice of inheritance. Should these inheritances be bound by blood? By marriage? By both? Should the oldest child always be the heir? With this ending, Rossetti brings to light the problems inherent in this system. Is there really any type of natural right that a person has by simply being born?
“Sister Maude” addresses a similar issue where a woman has become pregnant outside of marriage. But instead of the pregnant woman being shamed, it is the woman’s sister Maude who is shamed. For the speaker, the real sin is that Maude has betrayed her trust by telling everyone about the pregnancy and the affair. Here, Rossetti calls into question the shaming of women who become pregnant outside of marriage. This is certainly political because women can be denied fundamental rights because they are pregnant without a husband. Even in our time, we can remember when women would not be able to finish high school because they became pregnant. And we still have politicians who would like to shame women for using birth control, not to mention the catholic church who is still influential in many people’s lives. This type of treatment of women has real consequences. Impoverished peoples are denied the right to control the rates at which they reproduce.
“No, Thank You, John” is also political in that it affirms a woman’s right to decide who and if she marries. The speaker’s direct statements to John reveal the social structure that assumes that every woman must marry any suitable man who asks. Particularly interesting is when John must have told the speaker that she was not “true.” It reveals a social convention that women must be connected to men through marriage to be considered virtuous. In this case, the mere fact that John proclaimed his love for the speaker makes her bound to him in some way—she is no longer “true” because she doesn’t accept it. This is political because these types of social conventions bleed into other areas of life. An older friend of mine was explicitly asked at a job interview at a university if her husband approved of her working. And even politicians today are typically married. Have we ever had a president that was single? And although I certainly support marriage equality, we can see that this right also brings with it the weight of social convention. Gay couples will eventually be pushed to marry to be considered to be in legitimate relationships.
In any case, I probably see most writing as inherently political because it reflects the world in which we live. And the social world is the political. Our social conventions shape policy. The denial of marriage rights to gay couples is a perfect example. There is no logical reason to deny these rights. The denial of these rights for so long was based on social conventions. So for me, it’s all political.